My thoughts on politics, religion, society, technology and other areas of life.

7/04/2007

Final Comments on The Great Canadian Wishlist

The top ten wishes were:

1. Abolish Abortion in Canada: 9543 supporters2. I wish that Canada would remain pro-choice: 8008 supporters3. For a spiritual revival in our nation: 4508 supporters4. Restore the Traditional Definition of Marriage: 4485 supporters5. I wish tuition fees would be either lowered or eliminated: 3388 supporters6. It's time for drastic measures to save our environment: 3357 supporters7. Canada should keep Abortions and Gay Marriage Legal: 2308 supporters8. A Canada where no one must choose between paying rent and their medication: 1941 supporters9. Proportional Representation: 1810 supporters10. Greener Canada: 1301 supporters

Only a few things need to be said about the CBC's Facebook experiment. Three of the top five wishes were religiously motivated. It looks like there is a remnant in Canada after all (1 Kings 19:18). Wishes 2 and 7 are not wishes of themselves, but counter-wishes. They were created only after someone wished against gay marriage and abortion. These counter-wishes only serve to highlight the true wishes, the originals. With regards to abortion, as pointed out by John Pacheco, there is an error in the CBC's coverage. Environics conducted this poll in October of 2006. This poll suggests that 54% of Canadians do not support abortion beyond the first trimester.There is no end of vitriol coming from the pro-choice side. I am not going to link to it here, but if you need an example go to Choice-Joyce's blog. It's interesting that she considers the CBC's contest "stupid." This is apparently the real reason for the lack of action by pro-choicers. Presumably, they didn't want to sully themselves.Given the results, I am not surprised that the CBC limited their coverage of the contest. No doubt the powers-that-be feel the contest was a PR disaster. This is where the Internet and YouTube come in handy. It doesn't matter when the footage was actually aired. People will be able to watch it whenever they want for a long time.

7 comments:

Wishes 2 and 7 are not wishes of themselves, but counter-wishes. They were created only after someone wished against gay marriage and abortion. These counter-wishes only serve to highlight the true wishes, the originals.

I think thats probably the most ignorant thing I have ever heard you say. They are wishes and they are real wishes. Just because they were created after the pro-life and anti-homosexual wishes doesn't make them any less authentic as wishes submitted by Canadians who feel a particular way about a particular subject. It kinda reminds me of the kid in the playground, upset that someone else has climbed the ladder and joined him on the platform, yelling out an stomping his feet saying, "You're not allowed here! This is mine! I was here first!". As you, as a mother, know, thats behaviour that we seek to put a stop to.

The counter-wishes are legitimate, true, real wishes, just as the abortion and anti-homosexual wishes were legitimate, true and real wishes. To treat them as any other is to spit on democracy even more than this farcical CBC Facebook production already has.

For someone who considers themselves to be an enlightened philosopher, you sure do resort to ad hominem quickly. Wishes 2 and 7 are not wishes in and of themselves. They cannot exist in a vacuum. The only reason anyone wished for the status quo is because someone else wished to change the status quo. Incidentally, wishing for changes to the status quo was the point of the social experiment. What do Canadians want to change? If no abortion and no gay marriage were the status quo, and someone wished for both in order to counter an abortion or gay marriage wish, then the same would still be true. They would not be legitimate wishes but counter-wishes, unable to exist in a vacuum.Also, what makes the CBC Facebook "production" a farce? It certainly did not spit upon democracy at all. Do not believe the accusations of freeping and poll hijacking. I can assure you that at least from the pro-life side, that accusation has no teeth whatsoever. It was a social experiment. I have watched it rather closely. As someone with a keen interest in online communities, I have found it to be quite fascinating.

So, what part of calling me or my comments ignorant isn't ad hominem? Maybe you should have read what was at your link. "Ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument." Peter's first comment regarded myself. My statements are demonstrably not ignorant, since I have been following the Great Canadian WishList since it started. He then suggests that calling the counter-wishes not true wishes is equivalent to a child's temper. Both are false and neither have anything to do with my actual statement on the counter-wishes.As I said before, the only reason anyone wished for the status quo is because someone else wished to change the status quo. Wishing for changes to the status quo was the point of the social experiment. Some people just did not get that.

No, he addressed your comments. He didn't say "Ruth, you are an idiot, therefore your opinion is incorrect".

He gave an opinion on your argument (ie. the thing you said), not you. And that's not ad-hominem. His personal belief is that your argument is ignorant. Whether or not that's true is not part of the discussion I got involved in.

Please read the examples in the link I provided, and don't just stop after the second paragraph.

In fact, if anything, it was a compliment, because this was the most ignorant thing he ever heard you say, so prior to this, he's always had a higher opinion of your arguments than he does now :)

Comment Policy

All comments are moderated. It may take several minutes for your comment to appear on this site.
Please note that all inflammatory comments are immediately deleted without notice. All comments that do not facilitate discussion are deleted at my discretion without notice.